EDITORIAL: Drones and hunting should not mix in Pa.

There’s a lot we don’t know and can’t yet anticipate about the potential uses of drones in the future, which could range from annoying to life-saving to nightmarish.

So it would be premature to enact many new laws based on what-ifs — except in the case of a couple of bills under consideration in the state Legislature concerning hunting. Those bills fit the “seems like a good idea” category.

The Senate unanimously passed a bill in June that would ban the use of drones to disturb and harass hunters, fishermen and boaters. Meanwhile a pending House bill seeks to ban hunters from using drones to locate or hunt wildlife during a big game season.

The proposals at first glance may seem like overreaction, and the least of our potential problems with drones, until you consider:

Advertisement

• Pennsylvania is a state that fields over 1 million hunters.

• Manufacturers are marketing drones to hunters.

• Western states with a strong hunting culture, plus Alaska, are seeking to prohibit hunters’ use of drones as unsporting.

• Animal rights activists have announced their intention to use drones in Pennsylvania to spy on hunters supposedly to ensure they are following the rules.

Banning use of drones for hunting would to some degree preserve the “sporting” aspect, which emphasizes the knowledge, skill, experience and fitness of the hunter, as well as a culture of respect for wildlife and taking only what you will use/consume.

There’s already a rather fine line between time-honored sport and pure self-aggrandizement in regard to hunting — consider trophy farms and canned hunts, use of ATVs, all kinds of baiting, and shooting from aircraft. Use of drones would be a tipping point. Drones, which are noisy, also would disturb and mar the experience of other hunters.

Use of drones by anti-hunting activists would be equally unacceptable. Law enforcement officers don’t need civilian activists trying to do their jobs. Vigilantism doesn’t usually turn out well. Besides being dangerous, the activists’ use of drones to spy on hunters would in fact disturb the wildlife they seek to protect (and perhaps send animals charging into harm’s way).

Even if a law prohibiting use of drones to harass hunters is enacted, there may be conflict over the issue of “intent.” If activists intend only to identify poachers or violators of the law, not to harass law-abiding hunters, can they be successfully prosecuted? WHYY in Philadelphia recently quoted Ashley Burns of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as saying their drones would not run afoul of a ban to distract hunters or scare wildlife from hunters.

Meanwhile many issues remain regarding use of drones by hobbyists, law enforcement, search and rescue, media and commercial entities. A Senate bill still in committee would hit the pause button by stalling use of drones to allow time to draw up comprehensive rules. That makes some sense, although Pennsylvania government already is extensively using drones. Public hearings to air concerns and interests are needed.